The Colbert Report and more discursive integration

In last week's class, we discussed where 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' fits into the spectrum between hard and soft news.  Baym (2005) argued that the Daily Show was more complex and an example of discursive integration in a new media era of entertainment.  I would argue that Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report" is also a difficult program to classify.  Like the Daily Show, Colbert uses satire and humor to bring to light important political and social issues in America.  Where they do differ, is the methodology of satire used by each program.  We saw that Jon Stewart likes to poke fun and bring himself into a dialogue with those he criticizes.  As Baym describes, Stewart speaks with the voice of the "outraged individual who, comparing official pronouncements with his own basic common sense, simply cannot believe what he- and all of us- are expected to swallow" (p. 266).  On the contrary, Colbert seems to embody the exact perspective or mentality he is criticizing.  While Jon Stewart criticizes from a different perspective, Colbert creates a a politically conservative caricature and in turn becomes what he is (oftentimes brutally) scrutinizing.  Colbert sometimes even steps out of his show and into the real world, whether that's testifying in Congress (in character), or comedically creating his own SuperPAC.

When in character, Colbert oftentimes likens himself to Bill O'Reilly, or as he refers to him as, "Papa Bear".  In Colbert's interview portion of the show, he personifies a typical "Crossfire"-like attitude to the discussion, and attempts to derail his guest's argument.  The results are oftentimes brilliant.  While they may seem silly at times, they usually are extremely witty and intelligent moments of television.

I watched this interview with actor Mark Ruffalo a week ago, and felt that it was one of Colbert's best.  Here, he plays his usual rude self when talking to a "Hollywood liberal elite".  After  a few minutes he eventually gives Ruffalo the opportunity to make his case, which he does so quite effectively.  Ruffalo makes his points against the practicing of hydraulic-fracturing, or "tracking" by energy companies.  I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and watch the interview.  It is funny, silly, scary, and sobering all within a 7 minute span, and is everything the Colbert Report is about.  This is another example of discursive integration-- where the interview is educational, entertaining, and in its own category of broadcast media journalism.

I am pro-ProPublica

"ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them."

This is how the ProPublica website describes itself, and it really is a great media source.  That is, if you're into that whole "social responsibility" thing.  I read an article the other day on their site that had to do with new federal rules for natural gas companies to disclose information about the chemicals they use for hydraulic-fracturing.  The article laid out the Bureau of Land Management's draft of proposed rules regarding fracking, and went in to detail as to how certain loopholes may be used to go around these rules.  While the article was informative and the issue responsibly addressed, what impressed me most was one of the comments underneath.  In class, we talked about how the comments section can be a very informative collection of diverse opinions.  Many different types of comments had to do with the content of the article of course, but there was one comment that caught my eye.  'John' commented not only on what the article had to say, but also on the quality of the article itself.  He noted that the article formed one side of the argument pretty informally.  I would say that given past articles about fracking, we can let this detail slide.  But it really said something about the quality of discussion on this site.  The readers are concerned about the state of journalism itself, and want to hold ProPublica to the high standards they expect.  It's worth looking at this article, and I recommend looking around at different articles.  Many of them are boring and simply lay out facts for the good of the public, which is something that our media could use a bit more of.

http://www.propublica.org/article/federal-rules-to-disclose-fracking-chemicals-could-come-with-exceptions